Berliner Regierungsberater und Außenpolitik-Experten warnen vor einer weiteren Zuspitzung der NATO-Eskalationspolitik gegenüber Russland. Im Hinblick auf die gefährlichen Zwischenfälle bei militärischen Flugmanövern beispielsweise über der Ostsee führe "früher oder später" an "einem Umgang miteinander kein Weg vorbei", erklärt ein hochrangiger NATO-Funktionär in der führenden Zeitschrift des deutschen Außenpolitik-Establishments. Man müsse Sorge dafür tragen, dass der Machtkampf zwischen der NATO und Russland "sich nicht zu einem Großkonflikt auswächst", warnt ein renommierter russischer Experte eines US-Think-Tanks: Der Machtkampf sei zwar "keineswegs trivial", doch sei er "einen europäischen Krieg ... zweifellos nicht wert"...
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/fulltext/59454
Terrorism – A Matrix of Lies and Deceit (by Christopher Black, 17.6.2016)
... Individual acts of terror, carried out by the lone terrorist or small group are carried out because they have no other political power than to try to frighten the populace. But acts of terror carried out by those factions of society that hold state power proves that they know their objectives and methods are criminal. That is why they have to resort to the terrorism of their own peoples in order to maintain control and dominance. And this is the state of affairs to which the world has been reduced after a century of war beginning with The Great War, World War I, through the Second, and the Third, euphemistically called the Cold, War, and now the Fourth, and final war that is now on-going and has been since the NATO terrorist bombing of Yugoslavia...
http://journal-neo.org/2016/06/17/terrorism-a-matrix-of-lies-and-deceit/
=== 1 ===
The deadly racism of the ‘anti-racist’ liberal imperialist
by Neil Clark*, 12 Oct, 2016
When it comes to hypocrisy, the pro-war Western ‘liberal’ is in a class of his own. While professing opposition to racism, the pro-war liberal is cheerleader for the most dangerous and deadly form of racism in the world today - contemporary US/Western imperialism.
A racism that is scarcely reported, but which has laid waste to entire countries and killed millions - and which now threatens to drag us into potentially catastrophic military confrontation with Russia.
We can see this abhorrent racism on display again in the current debates in elite circles in the West over Syria. It’s taken as a given that ‘We’ i.e., the US and its allies, have a right to declare who is or is not the legitimate government of Syria. We can demand ‘Assad must go’ but of course no Syrian government official can demand one of OUR leaders must go. The very thought of it!
We have the right to impose ‘No Fly Zones’ which of course won’t apply to OUR aircraft - only to THEIRS. We have the right to bomb or illegally invade countries at any time we want to - for whatever fictitious reasons - but if the people of the targeted country dare to fight back, we’ll call them “genocidal” and accuse their leader (and his allies) of war crimes and push for them to be sent to The Hague. Our leaders meanwhile can break international law and kill hundreds of thousands with total impunity.
If you doubt the inherent racism of the current world order, and think I’m overstating the case; then consider what’s been going on at the International Criminal Court (ICC). During its 14 years of existence the only people indicted and tried by the ICC have been Africans.
What would you say if there was a domestic court in England that only ever tried Africans? And that Europeans, whatever heinous crimes they’d committed, were never brought before the court. You’d call the whole set up racist, and you’d be right.
But it happens at the ICC and pro-war ‘anti-racist’ liberals are silent. Showing that on an international scale you can get away with the most blatant levels of discrimination that you’d never get away with domestically.
Regrettably, a sizable section of the anti-racist left in the West has bought into this pernicious liberal racism, probably without even being aware of it. Evidence of this is how few people feel brave enough to publicly declare: 'Actually the Syrian government does have the right to fight back against US- backed jihadists’.
Again, it's taken as a 'given' that countries of the global south targeted by the US and its allies have absolutely no right to engage in violent resistance; their governments are expected to roll over and die. If they dare to resist and fight back with force as Syria’s has done, then some in the anti-war movement even portray them as equally culpable as the aggressor.
Remember the outrage from the ‘Exceptional Nation’ and its allies when Yugoslav forces downed a US Stealth Bomber in 1999! 'How dare they! We have the right to bomb your country back to the Stone Age for 'humanitarian' reasons - but you have no right to try and down our aircraft!’
When three US
soldiers were captured, President Bill Clinton warned the Yugoslavs that they had no authority to put the men on trial, while stressing that the illegal US-led bombing of Yugoslavia would continue.
Again, the only way you could support such blatant double standards is if you believe that Americans and their NATO allies are superior to Yugoslavs. And that would be racism.
The dehumanization of the many victims of military aggression carried out by the West and its allies is another example of ‘acceptable’ liberal racism.
The millions killed by US/Western imperialism in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Yugoslavia and elsewhere, are not commemorated on any special day of the calendar. They’re most unlikely to be honored in any blockbuster Hollywood films.
While ‘regret’ is sometimes expressed over ‘accidental’ civilian casualties, there is no pretense at sorrow when soldiers fighting for armies of targeted states are incinerated in large numbers. Did you see any concern from pro-war Western liberals, when the US and its allies murdered 62 Syrian soldiers last month bringing the ceasefire to an end? No, me neither.
It’s doubtful the ’humanitarian’ pro-war ‘anti-racist’ liberals now clamoring for a ‘No Fly Zone’ to be imposed in Syria (or rather a We Can Fly But They Can’t Zone), have ever met any soldiers from the Syrian Arab Army. But I have.
A few years back I was in Latakia, Syria, waiting for a bus to take me back to my flat in Damascus. I’d missed the last one but a special army bus was waiting to depart. I was invited to travel on it. Throughout the journey the soldiers generously shared their food, drink and smokes with me. They sang songs, we joked and laughed. It was a great journey.
I always think of these Syrian soldiers whenever I hear a pro-war ‘anti-racist’ liberal feign humanitarian concern for Syria. Because for them, Syrian soldiers loyally defending their country aren’t human beings at all; they can be slaughtered in large numbers and when they do it’s a cause for celebration.
“When are humans not human?” asked my fellow RT OpEdge contributor Dan Glazebrook in his Morning Star column from August 2012. The answer is when they’re soldiers from global south countries resisting a US-backed invasion. Glazebrook notes that while soldiers of the occupying army are “always human no matter what atrocities they have taken part in,” those from armies that are defending their countries from Western aggression “are never human”…”even if they’ve never fired a shot in their life.”
The sad truth is that too many ‘anti-racists’ in the West are more concerned with bad things certain individuals say than with countering the most deadly and virulent form of racism affecting the world today; the racism that underpins the foreign policy of the US and its closest allies.
Just imagine if widespread racist pogroms against black people were to be launched by far-right groups in France. There would, I’m sure, be enormous and totally justified outrage. The perpetrators would be brought to book, and rightly so. But as Dan Glazebrook has pointed out, racist pogroms against black people were ‘characteristic’ of the Western-backed Libyan rebellion in 2011 from the very start. Yet Western ‘anti-racist’ liberals still supported the rebellion and Western ’humanitarian’ air strikes in favor of racist ‘rebels‘. How can you denounce racist pogroms against black people in Europe yet support them in Libya? Well ‘anti-racist’ liberal imperialists can. As Maximilian Forte wrote: “If this was ‘humanitarianism’ it could only be so by disqualifying Africans as members of humanity.”
The truly genuine anti-racist (as opposed to the fake ‘anti-racist’ liberal imperialist) believes that all countries are equal and that the US and its allies have no more right to threaten Syria than Syria has to threaten the US and its allies. Genuine anti-racists believe that all human life is equal too. And that international law should apply to all and that the US, Britain, Israel and their allies should not be exempt. It's time genuine anti-racists reclaimed anti-racism from pro-war Western liberals. Before the racist, virtue signaling phonies start their ‘humanitarian’ World War Three.
* Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. He has written for many newspapers and magazines in the UK and other countries including The Guardian, Morning Star, Daily and Sunday Express, Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, New Statesman, The Spectator, The Week, and The American Conservative. He is a regular pundit on RT and has also appeared on BBC TV and radio, Sky News, Press TV and the Voice of Russia. He is the co-founder of the Campaign For Public Ownership @PublicOwnership. His award winning blog can be found at www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world affairs @NeilClark66
=== 2 ===
Die Tanklaster von Kunduz
Die Angehörigen der Opfer eines Massakers in Afghanistan, das ein deutscher Oberst befohlen hat, haben keinen Anspruch auf Entschädigung. Dies hat der Bundesgerichtshof in der vergangenen Woche bestätigt. Gegenstand des Verfahrens war die Bombardierung zweier entführter Tanklaster nahe Kunduz am 4. September 2009. Der Oberst der Bundeswehr Georg Klein hatte die Bombardierung befohlen, obwohl in unmittelbarer Nähe der Tanklaster über hundert Personen zugegen waren, deren chaotisch anmutendes Hin- und Herlaufen vermuten ließ, dass es sich um Zivilisten handelte. Dies war tatsächlich der Fall. Klein hatte zudem fünfmalige Bitten der beiden US-Piloten, die den Angriff durchführten, abgelehnt, vor der Zerstörung der Tanker die mutmaßlichen Zivilisten mit einem Tiefflug warnen zu dürfen, um unnötige Todesopfer zu vermeiden. Bei dem Angriff kamen ungefähr hundert vollkommen unschuldige Menschen ums Leben. Nach dem Massaker wurden die zwei US-Piloten strafversetzt, Klein hingegen wurde zum Brigadegeneral befördert. Über Kleins Massakerbefehl vom 4. September 2009 urteilt der Vorsitzende Richter am Bundesgerichtshof Ulrich Herrmann nun, die "militärische Entscheidung" sei "völkerrechtlich zulässig" gewesen.[1] Ohnehin hätten individuelle Opfer nicht das Recht, einen fremden Staat auf Entschädigung zu verklagen; es gelte das Prinzip der Staatenimmunität. Laut Bundesgerichtshof können die Kläger sich auch nicht auf das Amtshaftungsrecht berufen. Wolle man dieses auf die Auslandseinsätze der Bundeswehr anwenden, dann könne es zukünftig "in mehrfacher Hinsicht zu Beeinträchtigungen" nicht nur der "Bündnisfähigkeit Deutschlands", sondern darüber hinaus "des außenpolitischen Gestaltungsspielraums" kommen.[2] Dies wiederum ist unerwünscht.
Die Brücke von Varvarin
Das aktuelle Urteil des Bundesgerichtshofs schließt an ältere Urteile zu einem NATO-Luftangriff vom 30. Mai 1999 auf die jugoslawische Ortschaft Varvarin an. Damals hatten zwei Kampfjets der NATO die Brücke von Varvarin zerstört - dies, obwohl das jugoslawische Militär in dem Ort nicht präsent war und die Brücke keine militärische Bedeutung hatte. Auch in diesem Fall unterließ die NATO jegliche Vorwarnung an die Zivilisten, die erkennbar die Brücke überquerten; tatsächlich töteten sie einige, die den ersten Angriff überlebt hatten und sich an Brückenteile klammerten, mit einer zweiten Bombe. Zehn Menschen kamen bei der Attacke ums Leben, 30 wurden teils schwer verletzt. Angehörige der Opfer klagten in Deutschland, scheiterten jedoch: Individuellen Opfern stehe das Recht nicht zu, von fremden Staaten Entschädigungen einzuklagen, bestätigte das Bundesverfassungsgericht. Allenfalls "Serbien als Staat" habe die Möglichkeit, "einen Anspruch gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland oder gegen andere NATO-Staaten geltend zu machen" [3], erklärt der Völkerrechtsprofessor Stefan Talmon von der Universität Bonn. Serbien freilich hätte, versuchte es Entschädigungen einzuklagen, mit massiven politischen Repressalien aus Berlin zu rechnen, weshalb es den Schritt bis heute gezwungenermaßen unterlässt.
Das Massaker von Dístomo
Mit Verweis auf die Staatenimmunität, die es individuellen Opfern untersage, Staaten auf Entschädigung für Kriegsverbrechen zu verklagen, hat die Bundesrepublik sogar die Forderung nach Entschädigung für die Opfer von Wehrmachts- und SS-Massakern erfolgreich zurückweisen können. Exemplarisch ist dies anhand einer Klage zum Massaker von Dístomo geschehen. In dem griechischen Ort hatten Angehörige der 4. SS-Panzer-Grenadier-Division unter dem SS-Hauptsturmführer Fritz Lautenbach am 10. Juni 1944 alle Bewohner ermordet, die sie antrafen - 218 Menschen. 1995 klagten Angehörige der Opfer in Deutschland auf Entschädigung. In letzter Instanz entschied der Bundesgerichtshof am 26. Juni 2003, es bestehe kein Anspruch auf Entschädigung, da "etwaige Schadenersatzansprüche" gegen das Deutsche Reich "nicht einzelnen geschädigten Personen, sondern nur deren Heimatstaat" zustünden.[4] Genauso entschied, auf Prozesse in Griechenland und Italien Bezug nehmend, am 3. Februar 2012 der Internationale Gerichtshof (IGH) in Den Haag. Im August hat nun allerdings der griechische Ministerpräsident Aléxis Tsípras angekündigt, Griechenland werde Entschädigung für die Opfer von Wehrmachts- und SS-Massakern einfordern - als Staat.[5] In diesem Fall böte das Prinzip der Staatenimmunität Deutschland keinen Schutz. Konkrete Schritte hat Athen allerdings bislang noch nicht unternommen. Ob der griechische Staat, der durch die seit Jahren anhaltende Krise in komplette Abhängigkeit von der Bundesrepublik geraten ist, sich Prozesse gegen die EU-Hegemonialmacht politisch überhaupt leisten könnte, kann bezweifelt werden.
Tausende Tote
Wie nützlich der Grundsatz der Staatenimmunität für die Bundesrepublik und ihre Verbündeten heute ist, zeigen exemplarisch Untersuchungen über zivile Opfer von NATO-Angriffen am Hindukusch. Eine vor kurzem an der Universität Boston erstellte Studie beziffert die Zahl der Zivilisten, die von 2008 bis 2015 durch Luftangriffe in Afghanistan ums Leben kamen, auf 1.766. In wieviele Fälle deutsche Soldaten als Teil der Kommandokette oder im Zuge der Aufklärung involviert waren, ist unbekannt. Hinzu kommen die zivilen Todesopfer aller anderen Operationen, die von den westlichen Streitkräften und ihren afghanischen Verbündeten durchgeführt wurden; durch sie kamen laut der Studie von 2008 bis 2015 genau 2.492 Zivilisten um.[6] Auch in diesem Fall bleibt der deutsche Mordanteil unklar. Die Angehörigen der Opfer haben, wendet man das Prinzip der Staatenimmunität an, keinerlei Anspruch auf Entschädigung, solange der afghanische Staat sie nicht einfordert; das aber kann als politisch ausgeschlossen gelten. Zu den Opferzahlen hinzugerechnet werden müssen laut der Bostoner Studie noch die zivilen Opfer von US-Drohnenattacken in Pakistan. Deren genaue Zahl ist unbekannt; Schätzungen reichen bis zu mehr als 2.600 Personen. Von 2007 bis 2015 töteten darüber hinaus die Streitkräfte des mit der NATO kooperierenden Pakistan tausende Zivilisten. Eine Gesamtbilanz müsste die zivilen Opfer der Kriege im Irak, in Syrien, in Libyen und in weiteren Ländern, in denen NATO-Streitkräfte operieren, berücksichtigen; zudem ist in den erwähnten Opferzahlen eine relevante Dunkelziffer ungeklärter Fälle nicht enthalten.
Krieg ohne Risiken
Bereits im August 2014 hatte die Menschenrechtsorganisation Amnesty International energisch gegen die Straflosigkeit bei der Tötung von Zivilisten im Afghanistan protestiert. Seit 2009 habe es lediglich sechs Strafverfahren gegen US-Soldaten wegen Mordes an Zivilpersonen gegeben, stellte Amnesty fest; letztlich seien nur zehn Täter bestraft worden.[7] Die NATO-Streitkräfte müssten endlich die Mordtaten ihrer Militärs entschlossen bestrafen sowie alles tun, um weitere Verbrechen zu verhindern. Beides ist nicht geschehen. Im ersten Halbjahr 2016 nahm die Zahl der Zivilisten, die bei Operationen der afghanischen Streitkräfte und ihrer westlichen Verbündeten ums Leben kamen, sogar erneut zu und stieg auf 383. Zuletzt verloren bei einem US-Drohnenangriff in Afghanistan am 28. September mindestens 15 Zivilpersonen ihr Leben. Das Verbrechen erfolgte knapp ein Jahr nach dem US-Luftangriff auf ein Krankenhaus der Organisation "Ärzte ohne Grenzen", bei dem 42 Zivilisten umkamen. Hinzu kommen weitere zivile Todesopfer auf anderen Kriegsschauplätzen, etwa in Syrien. Die Staatenimmunität sorgt nun dafür, dass Opferklagen gegen die NATO-Mächte aussichtslos sind. Finanzielle Risiken, wie sie mit Entschädigungsklagen einhergingen, muss die Bundeswehr bei ihren heutigen und bei ihren künftigen Kriegen nicht mehr in Rechnung stellen.
=== 3 ==
À voir aussi: Communiqué du Sommet de l’OTAN à Varsovie : préparer le crime d’agression (par Christopher Black)
See also: NATO’s Warsaw Communiqué: Planning the Crime of Aggression (18.07.2016 Author: Christopher Black)
http://milosevic.co/552/christopher-black-operation-barbarossa-2-american-occupation-of-europe-intensifies/
Christopher Black: Operation Barbarossa 2 – American Occupation of Europe Intensifies
17/02/2016
On February 1 the New York Times ran a front page story by two of their journalists confirming the intentions of the United States to increase its occupation of and military presence in Europe particularly the east. Under the title “U.S. Fortifying Europe’s East to Deter Putin” the story sets out just one in a continuing series of acts of aggression against Russia. At the same time as the Americans announced this action they pretended to negotiate with Russia in Geneva about a solution to the American and allied aggression against Syria.
Of course, the story begins with the lie in the headline of a need to “deter Putin.” It then continues with the standard set of lies and propaganda about world events that we always get from the government of that country. No one outside the United States can read these things without laughing or crying, but of course they are intended to justify the criminal actions of the American government and ruling elite to the people who have to pay for the criminal wars they conduct, that is, to justify the unjustifiable, to the citizens of the United States.
There is no need to enter once again into the real history of events in Ukraine, Syria, Europe, Asia, Africa and all the places in the world where American and European meddling have wreaked havoc and loosed Chaos with the dogs of war. The history is well known by those who are interested. But there is a need to comprehend the meaning of what the United States is doing by announcing that it will increase its military budget for eastern Europe by 400%, from a current budget of $789 million to $3.4 billion in 2017. Since the Russians are not the threat in the region, but the United States and NATO are, the placement of military hardware to support a full armoured combat brigade in the region, and right on top of Russia’s borders can have only one other purpose, aggression.
Once can even argue that the pattern of moving equipment and forces continually nearer to Russia’s border, the continuous military exercises and their increasing control of the governments of the east European states in lockstep with this military build up, looks far too much like Nazi Germany’s build of forces prior to Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. History never repeats itself exactly, we have learned that much. But the overall pattern is very similar and the objectives and motivations remain the same.
The story also quoted American officials as stating that the equipment could be used in Syria, another threat to Russia. But the main threat is against Russia itself. Indeed the writers stated,
“Still, there is no doubt the primary target of the funding is Russia.”
The Times admits that the 1997 agreement known as the NATO-Russia Founding Act stipulates that neither side can place forces along their respective borders and admits that the deployment of American and NATO troops along Russia’s borders is a clear violation of the agreement. But, being the weasels that they are, they always state that wrong is right and so they simply deny they are in violation of the agreement or excuse it based on ”Russia’s incursion” into Crimea. This makes no sense of course since the United States took over Ukraine as its protectorate in the coup in 2014. Its forces have been there ever since and it has been in violation of the agreement from the day it was signed as NATO occupied, one by one, the countries formerly protected from NATO by the Soviet Union. The agreement means nothing to them. They just shrug their shoulders if it is mentioned and chew their gum.
Since the build-up of American forces in Europe is explicitly directed at Russia and since a few months ago an American general stated that they expected Russia to engage in “hybrid warfare” in the Baltic states and regard this as a “certainty” for which NATO has to prepare, an objective observer must ask whether the US itself intends to stage a series of provocations in the Baltic and blame them on Russia.
The Americans, British and Turks have created a series of provocations in the past weeks, accusing Russia of killing civilians in Syria, of violating Turkish, therefore NATO airspace, of murdering Russians abroad on the personal orders of President Putin, and as with other leaders they have attacked and murdered in the past, now accuse President Putin of corruption, a charge they levelled at President Milosevic when he was attacked and then finally arrested in Serbia.
This writer had the opportunity of meeting with Serbian officials who were in charge of the case against Milosevic at that time and I asked them if the corruption charges were true. They told me that they were completely false but that the Americans pushed them to charge Milosevic in order to undermine support for him in Serbia and as an excuse to hold him until they could kidnap him and take him in chains to their NATO tribunal in The Hague. They further told me that the Americans had threatened to bomb them again if they refused to cooperate.
The accusations made against President Putin are in line with this strategy of setting him up to be labelled in the west as a criminal with whom negotiations are impossible and therefore, setting the stage for sowing confusion amongst the Russian people about their own leaders, and undermining support for their government. But this is only one purpose and since the Russian people are very aware of how the game works, it is unlikely that this campaign of defamation against President Putin will have any success inside Russia. So, the primary objective is to demonise him in the eyes of the western public in order to justify further aggression against Russia and since these stories receive saturation coverage in the west, the NATO propagandists are succeeding.
It took nearly ten years for Operation Barbarossa to be set up and put into effect, from the time that Hitler was made Chancellor of Germany and began to discuss with the British and French his intentions of attacking the Soviet Union. The British and French were very content for the Nazis to do that and there is no doubt that the primary objective of Hitler was always the crushing of Russia. That the attack failed is one of the reasons the NATO leaders snubbed the Moscow Victory Parade last summer since they now identify themselves with the objectives of the defeated Nazi regime.
Some doubt that the NATO powers will actually attack Russia and risk a world war and point out that the forces being placed in eastern Europe are too weak to mount any attack. But they miss the point, which is that the build up is steady, and it is increasing, along with the propaganda and increased economic warfare. The Americans are really prepositioning resources, stores, equipment and headquarters and logistics bases that can be rapidly used to build up NATO forces at the right moment. The question is when that moment will be.
Unless the European powers can escape the American pressure and become independent states once again and unless a new regime dedicated to peace arises in the United States, neither of which look likely for the foreseeable future, it rests with us, the citizens of the world to get off our chairs and get on the streets and demand that these preparations for world war be stopped. For, unless that happens, the march to war by the Americans and their NATO lieutenants appears to be inexorable.
